Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> Paul Prescod wrote:
>
>
>>...Do you agree that it makes more sense to associate
>>schemas, stylesheets, etc. with document types than with namespaces?
>>
>
> Actually I think the two are just different. It really depends on the
> purpose of the association.
I agree.
[ snip ]
>
> Yes. That's probably the best idea. I don't personally have strong
> preference for an attribute at the root element vs. a PI, I suppose there
> are tradeoffs to each approach, which is why XML Schema uses an
attribute.
> But something like:
>
> <?rddl-doctype href="...uri..." ?>
>
> would also do the trick. I am interested to hear people's opinions on the
> tradeoffs between the two options
>
Actually, I think it may be perfectly okay to use W3C
XML Schema's xsi:type attribute and to have a
RDDL-(like) document at the named URI.
Right now, the thing at "http://www.rddl.org" starts like:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//XML-DEV//DTD XHTML RDDL 1.0//EN"
"http://www.rddl.org/rddl-xhtml.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/"
xml:lang="en"
xml:base="http://www.rddl.org/">
One could make a version that looks like:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//XML-DEV//DTD XHTML RDDL 1.0//EN"
"http://www.rddl.org/rddl-xhtml.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:rddl="http://www.rddl.org/"
xml:lang="en"
xml:base="http://www.rddl.org/"
xmlns:rxh="http://www.rddl.org/rddl-xhtml"
xsi:type="rxh:html"
>
I'm not an expert on W3C schemas, by a long shot, but
it doesn't seem to preclude your putting whatever
you want at "http://www.rddl.org/rddl-xhtml"
Best,
Bill
|
